Sunday, December 02, 2012

Mr. Obama, scarred by failed negotiations in his first term and emboldened by a clear if close election to a second, has emerged as a different kind of negotiator in the past week or two, sticking to the liberal line and frustrating Republicans on the other side of the bargaining table.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Yes, or maybe a tweak in the numbers that amounted to a pimple on an elephant's ass.

The pimple on that elephant's ass was a child's life, Ray.

How does "gun control" apply to this situation? The gun control laws kicked in -- and "worked." He found a way anyway.

Which is why people want to increase the controls, Ray. The existing laws worked. Unfortunately, existing law allowed his mother to have stockpiled weapons of an absurd nature, and he used those instead.

Your argument that "the law worked, so there's no point in trying to improve the law, because the law would never work" is...convoluted, to say the least

Yes, and this is basically along the lines of my first response to today's NRA press conference. The NRA has decided to see the left's insanity on this issue in response to the school shooting, and match it on the opposite end.

But here's where this supposed comparison falls apart... The NRA is a really thing. We KNOW who the NRA is. It has a real budget, conducts real fundraising, does real lobbying, has a real person who says these things, and exerts real influence on lawmakers.

What is the "left"? Some amorphous, constantly shifting boogeyman... which has no real power. Sure - you can find a Bloomberg here, some urban congressman there - but they're hardly speakers for the "left" as a whole by any reasonable definition. They don't win their seats based on the issue - and any replacements wouldn't lose them based on different stances.

You're essentially equating one of the most successful fundraising and lobbying entities in the nation with a bunch of blog scribblers.

Obama has no power? Lawmakers have no power? I wasn't forced into Obamacare?

Obama is not "the left" - I consider myself something along the order of "left-center-left" - and Obama is absolutely not part of my ideological tribe. We certainly have some things we agree on - but to whatever extent I'm part of the "left", we don't have anything near the universal cohesiveness that the NRA as a 'thing' has.

What's more - exactly what position has come out of the WH that has the same level of federal police force, armed guards everywhere nonsense we got from the NRA?

It's textbook sleight of hand, Ray --

"The NRA was just matching the insanity of this "left""... and sure, one can find plenty of 'insanity from the left' with a google search.

But that insanity from the left isn't coming from Obama... but you deftly try to substitute Obama for 'the left'.

Do you really think that argumentative logic isn't that baldly transparent?

Sam, I say this in all sincerity; you're way too smart to be making such a dumb argument.

I appreciate the compliment, but in this case, I think I'll stick with the point for the time being.

If reducing the firepower available to Lanza reduced his kill rate by even a fraction, to the point where 24 died instead of 26, that's not something to be handwaved away as a "pimple on an elephant's ass." (And Rays absurd notion that moving existing gun regulations back one tiny step, such that detachable extended clips are classified with automatic weapons and banned from the general public, is equivalent to locking up anyone with "mental illness" is just batshit insane.)

Did a 24-hour waiting period, informed consent, and parental consent requirements constitute "insanity from the right" with regard to abortion? And yet the left - in the form of Planned Parenthood in this instance - opposed these things in Casey.

Can you guess what they were afraid of? They think the ultimate end goal of many on the right is to ban all abortion. And they're correct.

Did a 24-hour waiting period, informed consent, and parental consent requirements constitute "insanity from the right" with regard to abortion? And yet the left - in the form of Planned Parenthood in this instance - opposed these things in Casey.

In other words, deflector shields to maximum!

I always thought the whole "Chewbacca defense" was silly parody of the legal mind... but apparently, they implant a chip with a JD that makes one not only proficient in -- but unable to discuss anything without resorting to logical three-card monte.

that's not something to be handwaved away as a "pimple on an elephant's ass."

Not as crassly as he did, but it's still the same argument and demagogic appeal to emotion as the pro-Drug War arguments I've heard from police most of my life and I imagine what a lot of people heard about alcohol during the 20s. Liberals should be better than that.

DanRiehl@DanRiehl

Truly insane but he's pretty fun for a wingnut and has a sense of humor. We used to make light of the fact that he resembles Tor Johnson and he took it really well.

'boring guy, career politician/government official, reached for the brass ring once and lost'.... There's no shame in being Adlai Stevenson

Or Ed Muskie. I remember Jimmy Carter, probably at the '96 DNC after Muskie had died, saying fervently "wouldn't Ed Muskie have made a great President?" He was expecting mass applause, but all the delegates were like, "whatever." Good public servant, though, for sure.

I didn't ignore it. It's exactly as I stated: as long as the NRA endorses a lefty response to the problem, you guys are totally cool with the NRA.

Ray, if the NRA decided to place on the boxes (yes, they come in boxes) of 1 out of every 1000 guns sold "Purposefully shooting people in the face who aren't holding a gun on you is probably wrong", you'd call it a lefty response. This discussion with you is pointless, because as you've clearly stated many times, the idea of compromise to you is pointless. Which brings me back to the relevancy of your positions.

I didn't ignore it. It's exactly as I stated: as long as the NRA endorses a lefty response to the problem, you guys are totally cool with the NRA.

Hell, they don't even need to "endorse it" -- I'd settle for them agreeing not to send out the fear-mongering hounds and simply say "show us the details and we'll hold fire if those proposals are workable with our core mission of protecting second amendment rights"...

...and I'll even listen and bend when it comes things like, say -- who pays for the backgound check and how do we make it accessible to all gunsellers (to which my answer would be - if you're worried about cost, I'd be willing to statutorily guarantee it be free).

I perfectly understand the concept of slippery slopes and limitations on 'rights' -- but we have all sorts of limitations on the 1st amendment that no one seems all that interested in fighting... My freedom of speech doesn't allow me to go to the town square and begin shouting profanities through a megaphone -- and I think most of us are fine with this limitation.

Limiting clip size and universal background checks seem to be perfectly reasonable equivalents... I readily admit they won't stop innocent folks from being shot nor will they end massacres... just like 'disturbing the peace' ordinances wouldn't prevent me from actually going to Daley Plaza tomorrow and getting in a few choice shouts before I faced the choice of either being arrested or ceasing the activity.

To put the size of the effect into perspective, the additional homicides stemming from the FAWB expiration represent 21% of all homicides in these municipios during 2005 and 2006. Similarly, the additional gun related homicides represent 30% of all such deaths over this period.

US Gun law leads to thousands of additional homicides each year and many more suicides. Is that a pimple on an elephant's ass? Only if you're an idiot.

So now limiting magazine capacity to 10 and closing loopholes in existing laws regarding background checks constitutes a "lefty response"? Most lefties I know would be shocked to find out that this was their position on the issue.

What the Ray and the NRA are really arguing is that there is no such thing as a "reasonable" restriction on gun ownership. Which is ridiculous on its face, since there are already numerous restrictions on gun ownership that the overwhelming majority of NRA members find perfectly reasonable.

If it's appropriate for the NRA to fear that the real agenda of those who propose modest restrictions is really to confiscate all firearms from all civilians, then it's only logical for the rest of the world to conclude that the NRA's real agenda is to make it legal for anyone to own 50 caliber machine guns, grenade launchers, etc.

Lassus, Adam Lanza broke many laws - very serious laws - to say nothing of the horrific way in which he broke those laws. And your response is - more laws. It simply doesn't compute for me.

Because you don't give a crap about anything you disagree with. And you refuse to move, in any direction, at all. Various (no, not all) lefties in this very debate are more willing to look on how viable their plans might be, that to accept that FULL BANS OMG are not the answer, so instead go for small compromises. I personally have already said I didn't think more laws might be the answer, that is actually my default position, but there are good ideas out there. There is also endless data such as in #4423, that works with actual numbers. You. Don't. Care. That is it, period. Belief wins, every time.

The expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban led to a 38% increase in homicides in municipios located near the AZ, TX and NM border compared to those located on the California border.

That's not limited in scope or anything...

Let's see what the National Academy of Sciences said in reviewing the studies on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

A recent evaluation of the short-term effects of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes (Koper and Roth, 2001b). Using state-level Uniform Crime Reports data on gun homicides, the authors of this study suggest that the potential impact of the law on gun violence was limited by the continuing availability of assault weapons through the ban’s grandfathering provision and the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban. Indeed, as the authors concede and other critics suggest (e.g., Kleck, 2001), given the nature of the intervention, the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small and, if there were any observable effects, very difficult to disentangle from chance yearly variation and other state and local gun violence initiatives that took place simultaneously.

(to which my answer would be - if you're worried about cost, I'd be willing to statutorily guarantee it be free).

The gun issue has never been of much interest to me so I can't say I've read a ton on the issue, but I've before heard anyone on the control side of the argument say anything so conscientious with regard to potential economic hardship from regulations. I think if more Dems said this kinda stuff in public they could probably peel away a significant lot of NRA-sympathetic people.

Well, we could save at least another child's life if we lock up all the Adam Lanza's. WHY DON'T YOU ADVOCATE THAT WE DO THIS, YOU HEARTLESS BASTARD?!!?!?!

Because it could be saved by a less intrusive, not to mention actually sane, idea -- keeping guns like the AR-15 out of the hands of the Adam Lanzas.

You still haven't addressed the upthread criticism of your preposterous assertion that Lanza would have killed 26 and exactly 26 kids had he used something other than assault weapons, just because he wanted to.

NAS also referred to the Australian bans after the Tasmanian killings, as well.

Outside the United States there have been a small number of buy-backs of much larger quantities of weapons, in response to high-profile mass murders with firearms. Following a killing of 35 persons in Tasmania in 1996 by a lone gunman, the Australian government prohibited certain categories of long guns and provided funds to buy back all such weapons in private hands (Reuter and Mouzos, 2003). A total of 640,000 weapons were handed in to the government (at an average price of approximately $350), constituting about 20 percent of the estimated stock of weapons. The weapons subject to the buy-back, however, accounted for a modest share of all homicides or violent crimes more generally prior to the buy-back. Unsurprisingly, Reuter and Mouzos (2003) were unable to find evidence of a substantial decline in rates for these crimes. They noted that in the six years following the buy-back, there were no mass murders with firearms and fewer mass murders than in the previous period; these are both weak tests given the small numbers of such incidents annually.

Here's the abstract for the the NYU study, which found estimated that 21% of the 60% increase in homicides in Mexico were due to ease of availability because of the serious drug cartel activities.

To what extent, and under what conditions, does access to arms fuel violent crime? To
answer this question, we exploit a unique natural experiment: the 2004 expiration of
the U.S. Federal Assault Weapons Ban exerted a spillover on gun supply in Mexican
municipios near Texas, Arizona and New Mexico, but not near California, which retained
a pre-existing state-level ban. We Önd Örst that Mexican municipios located closer to the
non-California border states experienced di§erential increases in homicides, gun-related
homicides and crime gun seizures in the post-2004 period. Second, the magnitude of
this e§ect is contingent on political factors related to Mexicoís democratic transition.
Killings increased substantially more in municipios where local elections had become more
competitive prior to 2004, with the largest di§erentials emerging in high narco-tra¢ cking
areas. Our Öndings are consistent with the notion that political competition undermined
informal agreements between drug cartels and entrenched local governments, highlighting
the role of political instability in mediating the gun-crime relationship.

Personally, I neither own a gun nor have any desire to have one. I'm a member of the ACLU and not a member of the NRA. I personally have no problem with limiting capacities and some of the other things mentioned as a reasonable, pragmatic compromise. My only complaint in this subject is that I think there's an issue of trust here on the part of gun owners, the same one that you see from the pro-choice folks - it's hard to trust a reasonable compromise with the same people who have gleefully declared they want much more strict measures. Many gun owners no doubt feel -- and I believe that this is accurate -- that if they simply agree to these compromises, next time there's a very public heinous crime like this, there will be new "reasonable compromise" that moves farther, and so on.

From the rest of the article that Szymborski excerpted, but not linked to.

Because the ban has not yet reduced the use of LCMs in crime, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. However, the ban’s exemption of millions of pre-ban AWs and LCMs ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually. Those effects are still unfolding and may not be fully felt for several years into the future, particularly if foreign, pre-ban LCMs continue to be imported into the U.S. in large numbers.

The FAWB, as flawed as it was, still reduced gun deaths. A better bill, which provided fewer loopholes, would do even better.

Has the idea of mandated gun insurance been addressed/debunked? A high premium on any gun that gets cut way down with training, but escalates waaay up with multiple purchases and unnecessary-for-hunting-and-home-defense-type-weapons would protect the right to own a gun for self-protection, discourage the hoarders, and take into account the potential damage the guns can cause to society (ala cars).

A question for our resident libertarian posters: what are your thoughts on repealing the statutory protection gun manufacturers currently enjoy from the victims of gun violence? Isn't tort law the libertarian solution to issues like these?

The problem is that it would seem to have its own thorny legal issues as well, both due the the nature of the second amendment being a right that you'd essentially have to pay to exercise, and due to greatly extending what liability is creative -- lawyers, let me know if I'm thinking of the right term here -- proximate cause issues. Would really need Ray or DMN to speak further to this, I guess.

Yeah, to the actual responsible parties. The gun maker shouldn't be any more responsible for what the gun buyer does than the brewery should be responsible for the drunk driver or the box cutter manufacturer should be responsible for 9/11. Unless, of course, there was actual coercion involved.

That we support tort law for many things doesn't mean we support suing anybody for any thing one feels like.

"My only complaint in this subject is that I think there's an issue of trust here on the part of gun owners, the same one that you see from the pro-choice folks - it's hard to trust a reasonable compromise with the same people who have gleefully declared they want much more strict measures."

That we support tort law for many things doesn't mean we support suing anybody for any thing one feels like.

Sure, but the standard for product liability has never been coercion, it's negligence. And in some cases not even that is required. The argument re gun manufacturers is that they're selling an inherently dangerous product and that it's negligent to not make every effort to prevent that product from falling into the wrong hands. It's a difficult case to make and certainly doesn't apply to every shooting, but it seems like an obvious way to price some of the cost of shooting deaths into the gun economy. Otherwise, gun violence is a huge externality were asking society at large to eat. Maybe that's just the price of the 2nd amendment, but I'm not sure it has to be.

Not to bring back Ray's obvious attempt to deflect the conversation, but I wanted to comment on ...

Did a 24-hour waiting period, informed consent, and parental consent requirements constitute "insanity from the right" with regard to abortion?

The left - at least me and everyone I know - opposes these measures on merits. Not because of some bizarre slippery slope argument, but because in and of themselves those changes are bad. For a whole variety of reasons, among them they conflict with what the medical profession as a whole has decided is medical best practice for a medical procedure.

So yes it is insanity from the right, which does also want a total ban and other things.

Sure, but the standard for product liability has never been coercion, it's negligence. And in some cases not even that is required. The argument re gun manufacturers is that they're selling an inherently dangerous product and that it's negligent to not make every effort to prevent that product from falling into the wrong hands.

I'm not saying it isn't done, I'm saying that it's a terrible justification.

Whether or not you agree with the justification for such a law, it's damn hard to argue that parental consent for abortions, with allowances made for intervention in rare instance in which the minor would be in danger, isn't some great danger to the very notions of abortion rights. But pro-choice people *are* extremely distrustful when this is proposed by the very same people that want to completely ban abortion. And like the gun owners, for very good reason

among them they conflict with what the medical profession as a whole has decided is medical best practice for a medical procedure.

A compromise, by definition, is something that's going to be against the best beliefs of the parties involved. If I think the best price for my chocolate is $4 and your peanut butter is worth $1 and you think the best price for your peanut butter is worth $4 and my chocolate is worth $1, the marrying of peanut butter and chocolate is going to necessitate us both coming down from our best practices of valuing peanut butter and chocolate.

Sure, but the standard for product liability has never been coercion, it's negligence. And in some cases not even that is required.

Generally speaking, the standard isn't negligence, it's strict liability. The traditional reason for not applying that to guns (or knives) is that the product is functioning as intended. That's the existing legal standard.

In order for insurance to work, it would have to apply to and be paid for by the purchaser of a gun at the time of purchase. The insurance would pay out any time someone was killed or injured by that gun, unless the owner could prove a sale (that is, the insurance would have to cover cases in which the gun was stolen). One obvious issue is that insuring a mass killing would be pretty expensive, making a gun purchase very costly. Of course, the lower the rate of fire, the lower the rate of insurance might be.

While I think there are problems with this idea, the fact that it imposes a cost on the exercise of a Constitutional right isn't very persuasive. You have, for example, a Constitutional right to a lawyer, but you have to pay for her. You have a Constitutional right to freedom of the press, but in order to exercise it you have to buy a press.

You have, for example, a Constitutional right to a lawyer, but you have to pay for her. You have a Constitutional right to freedom of the press, but in order to exercise it you have to buy a press.

Yes, you have to pay in order to best exercise your right to free speech, but there's a big step between the practicality of needing to pay for publishing and requiring everyone that exercises free speech to have a prearranged libel insurance policy. A sales tax on the gun purchase is simply done in the context of the gun as commerce at the moment of purchase - a required insurance policy would directly hamper the right above and beyond a commercial transaction.

I'm still trying to figure out why the Federal government can't simply regulate how many bullets a gun can hold, what kind of bullets, and the rate of fire. Make all arms capable of firing a single .22 caliber shot that has to be manually loaded. Bingo-bango 99% of your problems are solved going forward. Allow pre-law guns to be grandfathered in but they have to either have the firing pin removed or permanently modified to meet the demands of the law.

Yes, you have to pay in order to best exercise your right to free speech

There are 2 separate and distinct rights: to speech, and to "the press". In order to take advantage of the latter, you have to (or at least had to in the past) buy a "press". But even if this example weren't a good one, the lawyer example is.

a required insurance policy would directly hamper the right above and beyond a commercial transaction.

Well, the economic argument would be that mandatory insurance prevents guy buyers from externalizing the cost of deaths caused by the guns they buy. In effect, you want society to subsidize that cost. Insurance eliminates that subsidy.

I'm still trying to figure out why the Federal government can't simply regulate how many bullets a gun can hold, what kind of bullets, and the rate of fire. Make all arms capable of firing a single .22 caliber shot that has to be manually loaded. Bingo-bango 99% of your problems are solved going forward. Allow pre-law guns to be grandfathered in but they have to either have the firing pin removed or permanently modified to meet the demands of the law.

I suggested something similar above (single shot, bolt action). Whether this is Constitutional depends on how the Court takes Heller and MacDonald.

Charles P. Pierce on Boehner's humiliation and the vividly unfolding catastrophe that is the Republican Party of today:

There is no possible definition by which the Republicans can be considered an actual political party any more. They can be defined as a loose universe of inchoate hatreds, or a sprawling confederation of collected resentments, or an unwieldy conglomeration of self-negating orthodoxies, or an atonal choir of rabid complaint, or a cargo cult of quasi-religious politics and quasi-political religion, or simply the deafening abandoned YAWP of our bitter national Id. But they are not a political party because they have rendered themselves incapable of politics.

One wishes there were more to disagree with there than there is. Fervently.

I'm still trying to figure out why the Federal government can't simply regulate how many bullets a gun can hold, what kind of bullets, and the rate of fire. Make all arms capable of firing a single .22 caliber shot that has to be manually loaded. Bingo-bango 99% of your problems are solved going forward. Allow pre-law guns to be grandfathered in but they have to either have the firing pin removed or permanently modified to meet the demands of the law.

This is exactly the type of thing which makes gun owners suspicious of reasonable measures. Allowing only one-shot guns is just as extreme a position to take as saying that any restriction whatsoever on clip size is an abomination. Self-defense is a difficult environment for the average gun owner, now you're essentially making it even more dangerous to defend oneself. Plus, with only one shot readily available, you make it a tactical necessity to choose a gun that minimizes the room for error or maximizes the stopping power.

While I don't have a gun or desire one, I do have shooting experience. If I needed a gun for self-defense, I'd go with a .22. If I only had one shot and wanted a gun under this scenario, I'm suddenly looking for a .500 Magnum or a shotgun.

Sure, but in what way is Australia not a good match for the US then? What other country is better?

That they have much lower population density, urban centers, racial conflict ? (non whites make up about 5% of the population. and most of that are East Asians)

I've been saying this and again, if the GOP really think the gun rights is what the founding father intended, then they should also advocate for the return of mandatory draft service, since anyone with any sense of history will see that the milita was inseperatably tied to the 2nd amendment, and in reality, it does makes much more practical sense of building "social responsibility" than hoping that everyone goes to church.

A mandatory service to local milita would actually addrses quite a few things at once, but I'm pretty sure if the Republicans aren't going for that the Dems sure as hell won't either.

This is exactly the type of thing which makes gun owners suspicious of reasonable measures. Allowing only one-shot guns is just as extreme a position to take as saying that any restriction whatsoever on clip size is an abomination. Self-defense is a difficult environment for the average gun owner, now you're essentially making it even more dangerous to defend oneself. Plus, with only one shot readily available, you make it a tactical necessity to choose a gun that minimizes the room for error or maximizes the stopping power.

While I don't have a gun or desire one, I do have shooting experience. If I needed a gun for self-defense, I'd go with a .22. If I only had one shot and wanted a gun under this scenario, I'm suddenly looking for a .500 Magnum or a shotgun.

you've got a gun to defend yourself. Your attacker either doesn't or also has a single shot gun how is this different than having a 9mm and your attacker having a 9mm?

I also don't really care about what makes gun owners suspicious since everything other than, "yes, please I'll have another gun" makes them suspicious.

you know who has shown a history of brutality and occasionally losing it? Guards, that's who.

I agree, but it is a relative comparison to teachers, who are not that much less likely of losing it, and have a much higher chance of accidental discharge in the vicnity of kids and/or having kids messing with their weapons.

In other news, people are shorting Herbalife for being a pyramid scheme, which Herbalife denies.

Pretty much all direct sales are a pyramid scheme to some extend. Amway was also accused before for example.

BTW, the whole national security guard thing is not all that crazy. Having a retired police officer in schools outside of the administration has actually been proven somewhat effective. Kids are more likely to "tattle" on classmates if they feel like the classmate won't get in trouble if the threat isn't serious.

It's not a terrible idea. I mean, they shouldn't have guns, because that's just asking for problems, but having retired cops hang out in schools isn't a horrible idea.

No, I would want the person who does something to be responsible for the things they and they alone do.

This is both wrong on the merits and false in describing what the NRA wants. Taking the latter first, LaPierre called for police in all schools at taxpayer expense. He wants my tax dollars to pay for those who abuse the "right" he's defending.

Nor is this all. Society pays all kinds of costs for the misuse of guns: funerals for little children; medical expenses; emergency responders; the cost of the gun I myself might have to buy because the NRA won't agree to reasonable restrictions for the public safety.

As for the merits, you're skipping over the fact that the perps generally aren't available to be held responsible. They're dead. And however grateful we all are for that fact, that doesn't begin to pay for all the harm done. That additional payment -- insurance -- is what would actually make them "responsible".

It's not a terrible idea. I mean, they shouldn't have guns, because that's just asking for problems, but having retired cops hang out in schools isn't a horrible idea.

Retired cops hanging out in schools doesn't do anything about the next Adam Lanza, whether they have guns or not. And putting what it would take to stop the next Adam Lanza in every elementary school is a terrible idea.

Retired cops hanging out in schools doesn't do anything about the next Adam Lanza, whether they have guns or not. And putting what it would take to stop the next Adam Lanza in every elementary school is a terrible idea.

This, in a way, is the same thing that Ray is talking about. There are very few measures that could be put in place that are even remotely realistic to completely stop the next Adam Lanza.

But the goal shouldn't be to necessarily make it impossible, just to make it less likely. If we think about it in terms of baseball, pitchers don't try to make it impossible for hitters to hit the ball. They try to make it more difficult. That should be the policy goal for shooting deaths: harm prevention.

This, in a way, is the same thing that Ray is talking about. There are very few measures that could be put in place that are even remotely realistic to completely stop the next Adam Lanza.

Ray's taking the tobacco industry's defense tact. Nobody can prove that tobacco was uniquely responsible for a specific person's cancer, just like nobody can prove that any regulation could have stopped Adam Lanza specifically. Ray uses this to dodge the greater question as to whether or not fewer guns would result in fewer gun deaths, just as it allowed the tobacco industry the ability to dodge mountains of incriminating studies for decades.

But the goal shouldn't be to necessarily make it impossible, just to make it less likely.

If you want to make it less likely you need to build more schools, decrease class size and school size, add more trained counselors, have more specialized schools, and of course have better trained teachers.

Just so there's no confusion as to what a lefty response is, I'll offer up my position:

1. There is no right to bear arms. The second amendment is incomprehensible BS that means little to nothing for private citizens.
2. As there is no right to bear arms for private citizens, laws concerning guns should be considered as all other laws - by a balancing of the merits.
3. Thus, all guns should be illegal.
4. Yes, even guns primarily used for hunting should be illegal. If you want to kill a defenseless animal, use a crossbow. It should be hard to kill living things.
5. The federal government should immediately act to confiscate all privately owned guns.

I really don't think any "gun control" position that has entered the public consciousness in the past 20 years is in spitting distance of a true leftist position.

This, in a way, is the same thing that Ray is talking about. There are very few measures that could be put in place that are even remotely realistic to completely stop the next Adam Lanza.

And if Adam Lanza therefore shouldn't be used as pretense for more restrictive gun laws, then he also shouldn't be used as a pretense for less restrictive gun laws.

But anyway, I didn't actually disagree with your "not a terrible idea" assessment. My point was that it's basically a non-responsive idea. We could, in fact, defend our schools against these kinds of attacks if we really wanted to. But it would take something more along the lines of a national guard unit than a retired police officer.

Ray's taking the tobacco industry's defense tact. Nobody can prove that tobacco was uniquely responsible for a specific person's cancer, just like nobody can prove that any regulation could have stopped Adam Lanza specifically.

Or, the tact of the people against voter ID laws, who demand the same, plus not the slightest whiff of inconvenience.

Whether or not you agree with the justification for such a law, it's damn hard to argue that parental consent for abortions, with allowances made for intervention in rare instance in which the minor would be in danger, isn't some great danger to the very notions of abortion rights.

This assumes that parental consent laws are working properly. They are not.

Nor is this all. Society pays all kinds of costs for the misuse of guns: funerals for little children; medical expenses; emergency responders; the cost of the gun I myself might have to buy because the NRA won't agree to reasonable restrictions for the public safety.

Right. It seems like an industry making a huge profit selling assault weapons and handguns and yet bearing none of the costs for the foreseeable (inevitable?) misuse of such weapons is a clear example of freeloading.

I do think Dan's comparison to the alcohol industry is interesting though. I can't think of an easy distinction between the two (other than the fact that I like beer and whiskey and i'm indifferent to guns).

As established here after Obamacare Supreme Court case, there is a right to bear arms. By definition.

Two potential points:

1. There is no protected right to ammunition. Chris Rock's $1,000 bullets idea fits in here. It has the benefit of being a free market solution, too!
2. For any protected right, the state still has the ability to regulate it, as long as it demonstrates a necessary and compelling interest. The protection of the populace has been accepted. After all, the 1930's act barring machine guns from private ownership has not been overturned. There's no reason why banning full automatics should be obviously constitutional and banning semi-automatics obviously unconstitutional.

I can't think of an easy distinction between the two (other than the fact that I like beer and whiskey and i'm indifferent to guns).

Alcoholic beverages weren't created for the sole purpose of killing things, particularly other people. Again, while I don't particularly care for any guns, I have cousins who hunt, and I can understand why people want to keep handguns for defense, even though those handguns are more likely to do them harm than good. But semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines are created for one purpose: To kill large numbers of humans in a very short period of time.

As established here after Obamacare Supreme Court case, there is a right to bear arms. By definition.

Liberal position (and by the way, I know many people who feel this way about guns - - they just don't like then and don't think they should be legal) is that the 2nd Amendment WOULD grant a right (a la Obamacare) but it's uninterpretable nonsense (well regulated militia, etc., "arms" meaning small arms or ??)

But even if it did, the Liberal Anti-Gun position would be to repeal the 2nd.

This is both wrong on the merits and false in describing what the NRA wants. Taking the latter first, LaPierre called for police in all schools at taxpayer expense. He wants my tax dollars to pay for those who abuse the "right" he's defending.

Nor is this all. Society pays all kinds of costs for the misuse of guns: funerals for little children; medical expenses; emergency responders; the cost of the gun I myself might have to buy because the NRA won't agree to reasonable restrictions for the public safety.

As for the merits, you're skipping over the fact that the perps generally aren't available to be held responsible. They're dead. And however grateful we all are for that fact, that doesn't begin to pay for all the harm done. That additional payment -- insurance -- is what would actually make them "responsible".

Agreed. Really, this is something that should be in the libertarian wheelhouse.

Why do we want to have things in our society that aren't priced correctly? How can we say that gun deaths are priced correctly? I run over someone else with my car, they file a claim with the insurance I was required to have by law, the community of car owners and drivers picks up the tab, my individual rates also get raised or my privileges get taken away.

I shoot you with my gun, same deal. Uninsured guns are not paying their own way, because the owners of guns that result in death to others can't afford to pay the claims. This is economically inefficient.

The Lanza case should result in probably hundreds of millions of claims against the gun owning community. Even if Lanza had lived, he could not have afforded to pay those claims. So again, the gun owners are forced to pre-insure against the loss. This is exactly the type of society a libertarian should want.

Not quite. With both the Lanza and the tobacco example, there's an actual problem in that people actually got shot / got cancer.

Nobody ever dies as a result of elections? So, I guess all that talk of how Gore's administration would have been different than Bush's was just hot air.

And the proper comparison isn't people who got shot or got cancer versus people who didn't, but the difference over the baseline - the tobacco companies clearly lied (gun manufacturers have never hid that their guns kill things), but I'd be shocked if the number that would have not used cigarettes otherwise is anything significant.

I'm told that the ObamaCare case was just five guys in black robes, and not binding.

It was just five guys in black robes, but I never claimed it was not binding; I claimed it was incorrect.

I don't think the same about the interpretation of the second amendment as the right of individuals to bear arms. (Not absolute, of course.) See, e.g., Scalia's majority opinion in Heller. Scalia is correct not because he is a man in a black robe, but because he makes the correct interpretation of the text.

Nobody ever dies as a result of elections? So, I guess all that talk of how Gore's administration would have been different than Bush's was just hot air.

Call it "hot air" or conjecture or whatever you want, but there's no indication that the elections were fraudulent, so there's no reason to pass voter ID laws to solve the non-existent problem.

And the proper comparison isn't people who got shot or got cancer versus people who didn't, but the difference over the baseline - the tobacco companies clearly lied (gun manufacturers have never hid that their guns kill things), but I'd be shocked if the number that would have not used cigarettes otherwise is anything significant.

The point is not the baseline at all. The point is that while studies exist that show both smoking and access to assault weapons contribute to the damages claimed, it's impossible to link them to any unique, specific instance of cancer or gun violence, in this case, the Lanza spree. People use that as an escape hatch, and that's what Ray's doing. No matter how general someone might argue for gun control, Ray will always argue it back to the Lanza spree while ignoring the larger argument. Ray is making the same case as the tobacco lobby did for so many years.

Since Lanza's dead, there's nobody for people to point a finger at. So they pretend the NRA was the second gunman.

The NRA's statement _was_ crazy. But no crazier than what we've heard from the usual suspects on the left. The NRA, hearing the nonsense spewed from the left, apparently decided to fight crazy with crazy, draw a line in the sand, and say (as quoted up thread) not one inch.

Whether or not you agree with the justification for such a law, it's damn hard to argue that parental consent for abortions, with allowances made for intervention in rare instance in which the minor would be in danger, isn't some great danger to the very notions of abortion rights. But pro-choice people *are* extremely distrustful when this is proposed by the very same people that want to completely ban abortion.

Rare is doing all the heavy lifting here, and it's wrong. While it's true that most minors having abortions aren't in danger, they're already telling their parent(s) without being legally compelled to. The only effect of mandatory parental concent is that you end up dragging the 14 year olds who's pregnancy was the result of being raped by her father into court so a dozen or more people can listen while she's forced to recount how her father raped her and told her she's a dirty whore who deserved it (which she probably believes, given it's how she's being raised, and which the judge may well believe, given the composition of judges and how many old people favor this kind of thing). More likely, she'll end up choosing between a coathanger or waiting for her father to induce a miscarriage with a beating that's a bit more vigorous than usual.

So yes, favoring that, for no additional benefit, is an evil position to take.

I may be the rare liberal who's of the opinion that DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago (the recent handgun cases) were correctly decided. The Second Amendment must mean something. It's written ambiguously in terms of syntax (I use the text in grammar classes as an example of the vagueness of sentence adverbials), but the main clause is pretty clear.

Even DC v. Heller allows plenty of restrictions on handguns, though; it just says you can't outright ban them. So why not pursue the allowable restrictions, and push their limits? The right has no problem doing that when women want to exercise their Roe v. Wade rights, or when it comes to imprisoning huge numbers of people for nonviolent crimes and disenfranchising many of them. Things are plain odd when the Republican Party wants to remove so many people from the voting rolls, but not remove them from the gun-ownership rolls.